Died out game genre? [Archive] - DevMaster.net Forums

TheNut

07-01-2008, 07:39 AM

Those type of games are very linear, level-oriented. Back then it was cool because arcade games were the fad. Today we have full blown exploration with dynamic gameplay and storytelling, giving the gamer many choices. Players are usually no longer bound to a single entity, rather they are free-moving beings capable of entering and leaving various types of vehicles and environments at their own pleasure. The feeling of actually being there and a part of the game's universe rather than just playing it.

The theme behind these games would need such an overhaul to meet those standards that the new product wouldn't even be a remake anymore. Rather a total conversion. Besides, why enter a subterranean pit when we have games with epic scale space and ground battles. Descent Freespace was good at that, as well as Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (amazing game btw). Kind of hard to cram an epic battle in a 100 ft hole ;)

Nick

07-01-2008, 12:14 PM

Besides, why enter a subterranean pit when we have games with epic scale space and ground battles.
Err, have you even played these games? The majority of the action is on the planet's surface. It's not Descent.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-01-2008, 12:31 PM

I dunno if I'd play a remake of any of these games either. While good back then, in today's standard it would be a little boring.

Whoa, I totally disagree.. Games of the past was usually much better than games of today. While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...

TheNut

07-01-2008, 02:39 PM

I played Terminal Velocity like a decade or so ago ;) I do remember the coolest part of the game was going underground, that's the part I remember well.

Mattias, take a look at Mass Effect. A new edition to the PC industry, and a most excellent title. Assassins Creed looked cool (haven't played it much) and I'm still playing X3. The games of today are flashier, but there are some that incorporate many cool ideas and stories. That's a win-win situation. The console industry also has dozens of games of equal caliber, far better than PC. PC is a lot slower in that regard.

While I dig classics (still play Tyrian, Raptor, and Space Quest for kicks), I can't see a revision making a whole lot of money. I just don't think gamers of today will dig it. If they overhaul the game to make it more like Wing Commander, then maybe it has a chance, but now we're talking about a new game.

starstutter

07-01-2008, 08:21 PM

Mattias, take a look at Mass Effect. A new edition to the PC industry, and a most excellent title. Assassins Creed looked cool (haven't played it much) and I'm still playing X3. The games of today are flashier, but there are some that incorporate many cool ideas and stories.

you forgot one graphics element that really does deeply effect gameplay, 3D. 3D actually allows for interactive worlds from a persons eyes, something not possible with 2D and that is not nearly as fun.

Also, I think we should note that graphics do not effect gameplay. They do however effect story and immersion. There's a reason the games of the past had loose storylines (with the exception of hardcore D&D types), it was because the bockiness made it almost impossible to directly relate it to real life. I mean, yes there were games with serious (and emotionally deep) stories but it takes a special kind of person to actually look at a sloppy wad of pixels as a real person and start to care about them.

Hell, take a look at the Half Life series. The first game was almost comical in a way. While this still holds somewhat true for the new versions, they also have very deep and emotionally engrossing plots and characters (especially episode 2).

Nick

07-02-2008, 06:49 AM

I played Terminal Velocity like a decade or so ago ;) I do remember the coolest part of the game was going underground, that's the part I remember well.
Heh, I liked the planet's surface best. :happy: Anyway, this game genre could obviously include many different environments that are interesting to a large audience:

- Landscapes
- Canyons
- Caves
- Cities
- Industrial
- Underground
- Floating cities
- Seas and islands
- etc.

Most of these are already present in TV, but due to technical limitations they're not as immersive as today's games.
I can't see a revision making a whole lot of money. I just don't think gamers of today will dig it. If they overhaul the game to make it more like Wing Commander, then maybe it has a chance, but now we're talking about a new game.
I'm not talking about a straight remake, rather a totally new game inspired by these classics.

onyxthedog

07-03-2008, 11:39 AM

Inspiration is always a good thing. My personal favorite game ever was either the original Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis, but neither really had a story line. When I was younger (I am only thirteen so I couldn't be much younger, heh.) Probably 5-6 I liked that it was almost like a hack'n'slash, so I didn't really have to think like in a lot of games. Now I just like older games for some reason I don't quite understand. (Maybe it is because I like to just sit and relax a little every now and then.) I think the most in depth story I have ever played is probably a stupid DS game called Phoenix Wright. It was horrible, so I like a really good story but hate super tight stories that have almost no Game Play.

Over all it is hard to balance story and game play, which is why I also like indy games they usually do a pretty good job of integrating impressive game play to a nice story.

fireside

07-03-2008, 06:21 PM

Those type of games are very linear, level-oriented. Back then it was cool because arcade games were the fad. Today we have full blown exploration with dynamic gameplay and storytelling, giving the gamer many choices. Players are usually no longer bound to a single entity, rather they are free-moving beings capable of entering and leaving various types of vehicles and environments at their own pleasure. The feeling of actually being there and a part of the game's universe rather than just playing it.

Those huge games don't work for everyone. Me for instance. I don't really know what people see in them or why they want a game like that. I prefer having a goal with challenges. Many games, including sports games and puzzle games, don't do anything like that and still are popular. Not only that, but an indy trying to do a game like that has doomed himself to failure. I just bought a game called Red Baron Arcade which is a remake and it's great fun.

Dim_Yimma_H

07-05-2008, 02:26 AM

I love to go to our local Bowling Alley and Cicis Pizza just because the fact that they have arcade games.
Yeah, arcade games may be in their own genre even if stated to be "beat'em up" or something similar.

I like to think that the atmosphere in an arcade game hall is partly created by the high score stamps that allow competition with players of other times (a bit like Internet message forums), the machine-like interfaces and how it works like a public meeting point.

Online games in comparison, is like comparing a chat channel to a message forum. And online games are often played from living rooms.

So arcade games are very special.

Games of the past was usually much better than games of today. While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...
In my eyes, games of today are getting complicated with all their control features.

Many new games improve features introduced in previous games, and adds their own ones. It's fun if spending time on following manuals and tutorials, but often gets too much.

The simplicity of games of the past, is something I like.

starstutter

07-05-2008, 09:45 AM

While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...

I agree and disagree at the same time. Imo, the gameplay today of each stand-alone game is vastly superior (mainly because most allow for creative possibilities and problem solving) to the ones of the past. However, at the same time I think innovation for gameplay has severley declined.

Take Bioshock for instance. It's a game with a completley awesome story and some mindblowing ideas, but I was *severley* disappointed when I learned that the gameplay was copy and pasted from every other shooter in the last 8 years. Sure plasmids are fun, but they don't serve any real purpose but what a gun does.

The big daddies were more of a side quest and I was under the impression that the game mainly focused on them. Instead we ended up hardly killing anything but annoying splicers ragging on about bad tenderloin.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-05-2008, 10:47 AM

the gameplay today of each stand-alone game is vastly superior (mainly because most allow for creative possibilities and problem solving) to the ones of the past.

No.

But story in games have definitely evolved, or rather, taken over to a certain extent. Personally, I don't like that; I don't think games should be telling a story at all. Backstory, cool, interesting places, sure, characters you can relate to, yes please, but spare me the story part. Frustrated author syndrome anyone?

starstutter

07-05-2008, 11:18 AM

No.

what a convincing argument lol.

Care to expand?

EDIT: oh, and notice I said "In my opinon" before I made the statement about gameplay, making it clear that that's just what I belived.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-05-2008, 11:32 AM

we're all just stating opinions here: there's no absolute truths in these matters :D

To me, in my opinion, the way I see it, it's blindingly obvious that gameplay have been pushed far away in recent years, as game developers have been indulging in story telling, advanced technology and detailed 3d models instead of making games.

And people buying the stuff share the blame too...

fireside

07-05-2008, 04:25 PM

But story in games have definitely evolved, or rather, taken over to a certain extent. Personally, I don't like that; I don't think games should be telling a story at all. Backstory, cool, interesting places, sure, characters you can relate to, yes please, but spare me the story part. Frustrated author syndrome anyone?

The reason games feel like they've stopped evolving is because there is only so many types of game play you can do on a computer and we've done most of them. Now it's all this guitar hero stuff, but how much of that can we take? We can only make so many settings. So, the only thing left that can really change is a story. Story also makes us emotionally involved in the characters. If you've played the god games, you know you don't give a fig about the characters. They could just as well be goldfish or amoebas. Bioshock took the old game play and combined it with a story and it felt like something completely different because we were playing for a reason and our curiosity was at work trying to figure out what was going on. That's really the area of games that has to be explored or they will continue to feel like yesterdays news.

starstutter

07-05-2008, 05:39 PM

we're all just stating opinions here: there's no absolute truths in these matters :D

lol, ok, good point

To me, in my opinion, the way I see it, it's blindingly obvious that gameplay have been pushed far away in recent years, as game developers have been indulging in story telling, advanced technology and detailed 3d models instead of making games.

I frankly don't understand why you hate stories in games so much. The focus on technology over gameplay I can totally understand but we're getting to the point where graphics are going to be almost equal to real life and that will be less of an issue.

Stories on the other hand are something I think need to be explored more. As fireside said, the gameplay possiblities are very limited with current technology and the very best thing we can do is try to seamlessly blend the elements of the game world (including story) together and suck the player into the experience as best you can. I personally have stopped watching movies in the past few years because the stories in games have become far more sophisticated and immersive. Maybe it's hollywood declining or maybe my standards have just risen but frankly I think most movies today have udderly retarded stories.

Can you explain why stories in games are so bad? And really, you keep damning all the elements like stories, graphics, complex gameplay, free-roaming environments ect. In your opinion, what are good elements of games?

And people buying the stuff share the blame too...

I'm not sure the word "blame" really applies to that subject. The vast majority are buying them so obviously that means that they like the direction games are going in. And frankly from visiting so many developer forums, gamer forums and just conversations with people, everyone is getting really sick of minless repetative violence and future generation games I think are going to take a swift turn back to story-based problem solving rather than shooting.

onyxthedog

07-05-2008, 08:33 PM

You mean my years of lightning quick trigger finger training aren't going to pay off after all?

Seriously, what , other than graphics, makes Halo and Bioshock different? STORY! I am not going to lie, some of the story lines can be deeply compelling, such as when you find out that Captain Keys dies in the original Halo. You get attached, I mean the guy gives you your first gun, and then boom they take him away from you for ever. ( I exaggerated how much I actually care). Don't tell me that their is a lack of story, but rather a lack of genre is what this sounds to be. Maybe not even genre FPS maybe the way to go, but a lack of originality from within that genre in the matter of game play. Game play wise there is not a whole lot difference between Halo III and Gears of War. They have the same feel, with no major improvements in terms of game play. I could go on and on but I won't, I mean we could probably have an entire forum on Game Industry rants and it would get more daily posts than actual programming.

P.S. I have been meaning to tell you Mattias that the view from your window is breath-taking.

starstutter

07-05-2008, 08:51 PM

You mean my years of lightning quick trigger finger training aren't going to pay off after all?

dun look like it :(

Seriously, what , other than graphics, makes Halo and Bioshock different? STORY!

I've never been a true halo fan because frankly I think the game is very generic. I've tried multiplayer but I just kinda sucked at it.

I am not going to lie, some of the story lines can be deeply compelling, such as when you find out that Captain Keys dies in the original Halo.

other great emotional points lol:

when eli dies in Episode 2.
when you find out about Atlas in bioshock (or really it's just that twist).
When you finally pull your head out of your ass and realize you're Andrew Ryan's son.
ect...

Maybe not even genre FPS maybe the way to go, but a lack of originality from within that genre in the matter of game play.

You know, I lied actually when I said that there's not many other gameplay ideas to run with. I think there is bounds more we can do with the FPS genre, it's easy, just remove the "S" part. Either that or cut it down.

I personally was blown away by Portal because it showed that games can be fun without having guns in them. I'm not saying ban guns from games, but I am saying that we should start letting players solve problems and dangerous situations in games without the adventure game equivelant of "shoot man in face".

we could probably have an entire forum on Game Industry rants and it would get more daily posts than actual programming.

can we team up on that? ;)

fireside

07-05-2008, 11:01 PM

You know, I lied actually when I said that there's not many other gameplay ideas to run with. I think there is bounds more we can do with the FPS genre, it's easy, just remove the "S" part. Either that or cut it down.

I agree there. Shooters are getting extremely boring.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-06-2008, 03:18 AM

For me, story is just one more "easy way out", just like the focus on technology, detailed graphics, and gimmicky controllers.

I'm not actually advocating innovation to any extent, just well made game mechanics really.

Look at Chess for example. There's a game that really relies on solid game mechanics and balancing. There's several excellent card games sharing those attributes too (and note that I'm not saying all computer games should be like chess, I'm saying that computer games have a lot to learn from the solid mechanics of chess).

And game designers should be constructing, tweaking, adjusting and polishing game mechanics primarily. Story, art, technology... all those are secondary when designing a game (but, and here's the unfortunate bit, essential when building marketing hype. Which is the reason we're in this mess now).

Let's look at the Sims as an example (I guess most people are aware of it at least :happy: ).

For starters, it's got the build-and-customize element, which a lot of people enjoy. That's not a game though; it's a toy (an nothing wrong with that, I think games can and should be toys as well as games, but in order to classify as a game you need rules, objectives and winning/losing conditions).

The Sims also have career advancement. You get your Sim a job, which makes you money. You're given information about what stats you need to improve to get promoted. You manage your Sims activities, and buy equipment needed, to train them to improve those stats. Once you've achieved the values required for the stats, you get promoted, more money and a new set of stats to improve.

There's no story in the Sims, but you could argue that the player creates their own story while playing the game. That's the key to games, in my opinion: they should provide setting, characters and mechanic, but let the player create the story. That's the unique thing we can do in games, because when it comes to telling of a fixed story, games are simply an inferior media to books or movies.

And as for the caring of the characters: you do tend to care about characters you get close to and spend time with. People playing Sims (which has to be classified as a god game) care a lot about the character they've created. In RPGs that let you create your own character, players care like crazy about them. In most games with cannon fodder characters, you don't care about them, and in a classic god game like Populous, the characters are just that, cannon fodder, and of course you don't care about them. It's just a matter of how close you get to them.

Have a read of this: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010129/adams_pfv.htm
It's got a lot of good points to it, and following that set of rules would require some seriouse outside-the-box thinking, but more importantly, a focus on the important bit: the game mechanic.

Portal is actually a good example of intruducing a new game mechanic to the joke that is the FPS genre. No surprise the people coming up with the mechanic (in Narbacular Drop) were not in the games industry; if they had been, the idea would have been killed at an early stage. There's a lot of mechanics like that waiting to be invented, and THAT's what we should be doing, not trying to add yet another layer of complexity onto the rendering of a pixel :P

fireside

07-06-2008, 06:06 AM

There's no story in the Sims, but you could argue that the player creates their own story while playing the game.

That always seems like a kind of joke to me when people say that. If you happen to be in first grade, you could call those things stories. If you compared them to authors who created deep characters with plot twists and enigmas that need to be solved, they aren't stories any more than feeding goldfish is a story.

There are many types of games and story games are one of them. They aren't in any way inferior to movies but rather superior because they rely on the discovery of the person playing the game to set the pace.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-06-2008, 06:45 AM

No.

fireside

07-06-2008, 07:07 AM

Also, the portal gun was already around before Portal. It was the story elements that made the game unique and interesting.

starstutter

07-06-2008, 07:20 AM

For me, story is just one more "easy way out", just like the focus on technology, detailed graphics, and gimmicky controllers.

*cough cough* Wii *cough cough*

Look at Chess for example. There's a game that really relies on solid game mechanics and balancing.
I would also point you to Team Fortress 2. Probably the most well balanced multiplayer game of all time.

And game designers should be constructing, tweaking, adjusting and polishing game mechanics primarily. Story, art, technology... all those are secondary when designing a game (but, and here's the unfortunate bit, essential when building marketing hype. Which is the reason we're in this mess now).

secondary?
technology - yes
art - possibly (because this creates emotional balance)
story - no

Call me a rock beating cave-man, but I simply won't play a game if it does not have at least a mildly deep (and good) story. Frankly that provides somewhere around 70% of the entertainment value for me. When playing Bioshock, the story was almost parallel to the gameplay and I jumped with glee every time I found a new tape recording. New weapons I didn't care half as much about.

That said, I do agree game mechanics need a severe jump on the priority chain. Upon reflection in playing a lot of games, the story is what I'm really interesting in but it's so chopped up and segmented that you an amlost hear a "clunk" during transitions. Sometimes I get to feeling that the stoy is my only motivation through and gameplay is just an annoying obsticle. So you are right that gameplay needs more priority, but I still don't think it should be put before story. Art also is something to consider not tossing away because in certain situations it can have a serious influence on the atmosphere and thus, the story.

There's no story in the Sims, but you could argue that the player creates their own story while playing the game.

That's a bit of a stretch really. You can't honestly say (unless you're playing devlis advocate) that making a sims character qualifies as a complex emotion-enducing story.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010129/adams_pfv.htm

looks interesting, I'll give it a read

No surprise the people coming up with the mechanic (in Narbacular Drop) were not in the games industry; if they had been, the idea would have been killed at an early stage.
QFT

There's a lot of mechanics like that waiting to be invented, and THAT's what we should be doing
Ahh, but you're forgetting that Portal also had a fairly deep storyline carved into it and intermixed with the half-life universe. The first time playing, I think that was probably the thing that really kept me going. Not to mention the game having a plot was totally unexpected.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-06-2008, 07:43 AM

Upon reflection in playing a lot of games, the story is what I'm really interesting in but it's so chopped up and segmented that you an amlost hear a "clunk" during transitions.

Exactly. That's why games aren't a good media for telling stories. I think that if you're interested in the story, you should read a book, watch a movie or go to the theatre. Those media have been telling stories for a long time, and they're good at it.

Games are interactive by their nature, and a story will always get in the way of the interactive element, by restricting your actions to fit with the story, and at the same time, those interactive elements will get in the way of the story, not allowing it to flow and unfold in a way that achieves the best emotional repsonse, the way a movie or a book can.

I'm not saying stories are bad. We all love stories. But I do think that games are the wrong place to tell stories, but more importantly, I get annoyed when story is used as a crutch, when it is used to cover up the lack of gameplay.

starstutter

07-06-2008, 08:27 AM

I think that if you're interested in the story, you should read a book, watch a movie or go to the theatre. Those media have been telling stories for a long time, and they're good at it.

Well as I said earlier, stories in movies have grown absolutley abysimal in the recent years and they're simply not entertaining at all to me anymore. Also, I'm a slow reader and don't have good text memory, so novels aren't the best option for me :( Otherwise I would really.

Games are interactive by their nature, and a story will always get in the way of the interactive element, by restricting your actions to fit with the story, and at the same time, those interactive elements will get in the way of the story, not allowing it to flow and unfold in a way that achieves the best emotional repsonse, the way a movie or a book can.

Ah, now see there's something I wholeheartedly agree with.

But I don't think the thing to do is admit defeat and toss stories of games out the window. Rather, improve the mix of the stories and the gameplay so that they effect eachother. I know you don't like hearing it, but I think technology (but not gimmicks) can also help with that. As I mentioned earlier, graphics are not important for gameplay, they can however effect people's abillity to take the story seriously.

I'm not saying stories are bad. We all love stories. But I do think that games are the wrong place to tell stories, but more importantly, I get annoyed when story is used as a crutch, when it is used to cover up the lack of gameplay.
Or, as I said, serve as the only motivation to keep going through the game.

Again, tossing up the white flag is possibly the worst thing we can do in this matter. It's certainly not impossible to blend gameplay and stories seamlessly, it's just very difficult and will take more effort on part of developers. Bioshock is probably the best example so far of blending the 2 elements together. They did not effect eachother, but it really did feel as though you were right in the middle of all the conflict soaking up the rich story as you went along.

2 clear design goals are coming to mind for me right now:

1. Find a way to blend story and gameplay, as in, they are walking perfectly side-by-side the entire time (as in real life) and all your actions revolve around the story and vise-versa.
One way we can do this is by making more gameplay elements than running and gunning. I mean honestly, can you imagine a movie that was a 2 hour gun fight scene? That's why game->movie transitions suck so much.

2.Find a way to have the players actions effect the story
Maybe this is not achiveable at the moment, but there is an alternative. When a true element cannot be had, we can at least create the illusion of it. There are a few ways we can do this.
A) Have short-term emmersion: meaning that when players have an action it will cause an unforseen event that will effect or guide gameplay for a short time. The game can remain linear on the whole, but the play style will change. Black and White is an ok example of this (but that's the only one I can really think of).
B) Do not have pre-set objectives, rather, needed actions as a result of previous actions
I can offer a counter-example. In bioshock, the story is definitley the leader in that you are told everything you need to do. Almost as if you're a messenger boy. Every time you are told to "kindly" do something you simply have to do it. Now on the other hand, I look to the origional Half Life 1. This game revolved around Gordon making one disaster happen after another and the story had the illusion of progressing through his actions, rather than the story influencing his.
Notice too that both games are linear so that doesn't really make a difference.

onyxthedog

07-06-2008, 09:52 AM

I agree there. Shooters are getting extremely boring.
I wouldn't necessarily say that shooters are boring, for instance I love Urban Terror, but it has no story, no campaign, and no single player mode. It relies only on good game play. Period. I am not saying that story is of no significance, just as previously mentioned, less importance than good game mechanics.

fireside

07-06-2008, 10:54 AM

I wouldn't necessarily say that shooters are boring, for instance I love Urban Terror, but it has no story, no campaign, and no single player mode. It relies only on good game play.

It might not seem like it to you, but what that is, is a multi-player sports game. Of course it works, just like soccer, football, or lots of other games work. The question is, do you only want to play games like that? Which is all right, but I don't. It's not better than a story game. It doesn't have better mechanics except in multi-player mode. If you played that game by yourself, you would get tired of it very quickly because it doesn't have all those things that make a single player game more interesting. You can't just separate off some game elements and say they aren't important unless you are doing a very specific type game. Puzzle games don't need story either and I like a good puzzle game once in a while, but they aren't superior in any way to a story game. I'm not saying game play isn't important, it's very important, but all those other elements add interest to the game play which really can't change that much. We've had people experimenting with it for 20 years and there aren't that many new things you can do with it. We've all played the nth item tower defense, etc, etc.

Mattias Gustavsson

07-06-2008, 12:06 PM

I love Urban Terror, but it has no story, no campaign, and no single player mode.

And a good, well constructed game, doesn't need story or campaigns (haven't played Urban Terror, but I take your word on it being good :yes: ). As for single player, I think that needs to be made to work without using story as a crutch, by implementing good AI (and that's an area where we could do with a bit more focus on technology).

If a developer can't make the single-player mode compelling enough without resorting to story or campaign, they might as well not bother and make it multi-player instead...

onyxthedog

07-06-2008, 02:24 PM

It is an FPS, the apparently hated genre, but I love it because their is that sense of accomplishment and realism. Plus you can make things go kablooey!

Mattias Gustavsson

07-06-2008, 02:39 PM

I haven't seriously played first person shooters since Duke Nukem :D (except a bit of multiplayer Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and a little bit of Halo at a place I used to work, to try and pass the lunch hour more quickly (it didn't work)). There's not really been any point...

fireside

07-06-2008, 03:30 PM

If a developer can't make the single-player mode compelling enough without resorting to story or campaign, they might as well not bother and make it multi-player instead...

Thanks for speaking for all people that play games. Too bad it's a load of garp.

rouncer

07-06-2008, 06:49 PM

I never liked terminal velocity, didnt seem like a real airplane, why dont they tweak it better so it seems less like just jumping straight into the world after they made it and just hacked a fire button onto the map editor. (i liked afterburner better, even if i didnt even know what i was doin when i played it)

starstutter

07-06-2008, 07:53 PM

I haven't seriously played first person shooters since Duke Nukem

0_o

Wait, if you havent played FPS's in that long, how can you honestly pass so much judgement on them?

Mattias Gustavsson

07-07-2008, 01:45 AM

I haven't seriously played them since then. I've tried plenty of them, (mostly demos or at work) but if they haven't grabbed me in 20-30 minutes, I just leave them alone... and that's pretty much been all of them.

Not that I pass that much judgement on FPS games though.. I just largely ignore them

Nick

07-07-2008, 02:06 AM

...why dont they tweak it better so it seems less like just jumping straight into the world after they made it and just hacked a fire button onto the map editor.
Making a brand new game in the genre of Terminal Velocity, without the flaws, is exactly what I'm taking about. I'm curious what your suggestions are to "tweak it better". What I'm sort of imagining is Unreal Tournament 3's flying crafts with better controls and environments more adapted to the flying (vast terrains, tunnels, structures)...

starstutter

07-07-2008, 06:44 AM

Thanks for speaking for all people that play games. Too bad it's a load of garp.

the fire man speaks the truth. I'd recommend going out, buying Bioshock or the Orange Box (specificly Portal), playing them with an open mind, and THEN stating your opinions about FPS's. The FPS genre has changed a hell of a lot since the days of duke nukem. Even in just the past 2 years the change in stories has been massive.

Btw, Catle Wolfenstien, the new one isn't fun at all (seriously the origional is better) and I personally don't like Halo (not that I think it's a bad game, it's an above-average game that recives way too much inexplicable praise).

Mattias Gustavsson

07-07-2008, 07:21 AM

the fire man speaks the truth.
that'd be a first :lol: but no.

I'd recommend going out, buying Bioshock or the Orange Box (specificly Portal), playing them with an open mind, and THEN stating your opinions about FPS's. The FPS genre has changed a hell of a lot since the days of duke nukem. Even in just the past 2 years the change in stories has been massive.

I've tried all sorts of FPSs; none of them have been particularly entertaining. If you ignore the story (which I obviously do), what's left? Not much, I tell you.

Btw, Catle Wolfenstien, the new one isn't fun at all (seriously the origional is better) and I personally don't like Halo (not that I think it's a bad game, it's an above-average game that recives way too much inexplicable praise).

I totally agree.

onyxthedog

07-07-2008, 04:54 PM

If a developer can't make the single-player mode compelling enough without resorting to story or campaign, they might as well not bother and make it multi-player instead...
It is actually a Quake total conversion mod.

Nick

07-08-2008, 02:20 AM

I'd recommend going out, buying Bioshock or the Orange Box (specificly Portal)...
Going out?! :huh: You can buy both on Steam. :lol:

starstutter

07-08-2008, 08:46 AM

Going out?! :huh: You can buy both on Steam. :lol:

Now with steam, I never have to leave my house again! :D [/sarcasm]

rouncer

07-11-2008, 01:44 AM

Mattias Gustavsson

07-11-2008, 02:46 AM

first came wolfenstien.
then came doom.
then came descent. (terminal velocity)
then came quake. (after descent already made the full poly engine)
then came normal mapping and who cares if it looks real, because its not more fun.

So true :worthy:

I don't think 3D hardware have made anything good for games. Quite the opposite: it took focus away from the fun, and placed it on technology, to a level it's never been before...

Jare

07-13-2008, 01:15 PM

by implementing good AI (and that's an area where we could do with a bit more focus on technology).
In my experience, AI is much more limited by design and resources than by technology.
I don't think 3D hardware have made anything good for games. Quite the opposite: it took focus away from the fun, and placed it on technology, to a level it's never been before...
Games offer fun in the mechanics, and fun in the aesthetic experience (I like the way MDA (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf) explores this topic). 3D hardware hasn't done much for the former but A LOT for the latter. It all depends on what criteria you value the most because there are many tradeoffs. 3D opens more possibilities but the costs and complications rise way beyond 2D.

starstutter

07-13-2008, 09:10 PM

3D hardware hasn't done much for the former but A LOT for the latter. It all depends on what criteria you value the most because there are many tradeoffs.

I think you're both forgetting that 3D also allows for a much more explorable world and practically infinite more freedom for the player to do things in his own creative way. If you think physics technology is overrated, look at Half Life and just *try* to count how many ways you can get rid of enemies in that game just as a product of simple physics interations. Not simple technology of couese but you know what I mean.

Jare

07-14-2008, 12:43 AM

I think you're both forgetting that 3D also allows for a much more explorable world and practically infinite more freedom for the player to do things in his own creative way. If you think physics technology is overrated, look at Half Life and just *try* to count how many ways you can get rid of enemies in that game just as a product of simple physics interations.
The gameplay behind the usage of physics already exists in 2D: throwing stuff at enemies to kill them, building structures out of bodies that can be physically simulated, and in general interacting with impulses and reacting to collisions in varied ways. The complexity and detail is higher in 3D, and so are the possibilities, but physics gameplay has exploded in popularity (and rightly so - I don't think it's overrated at all) in both 2D and 3D. I shouldn't need to list examples. :)